Science and the Creator and Ghosts. (weapon, ideology, Army, percentage)

[djacques]

Originally Posted by LibertyandJusticeforAll

I have a question..
If science proved the existence of ghosts would that mean the supernatural is valid.

possibly/probably.

Would science review its evolution theory and look at creationism theory?

No. Evolution is sufficiently well-established to survive new phenomena.

Would religions say ghosts aren't real even if science proved it real.

Only religions say ghosts are real now, as far as I know.

Would science and the communication with ghosts change all concepts of humanity as we know it.

I have no clue what this means.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by wdavid002

The main reason, however, that evolution theory cannot provide a full explanation of our origins, is that it can’t take us right back to the beginning of the story. In order for evolutionary processes to get going, a lot of things must already be the case. For example: there must be biological organisms; there must be an environment capable of supporting them; they must be capable of reproduction; random mutations must introduce variety.
How did these things come to be the case? Where did these simple organisms capable of reproduction come from? Why do we have an environment capable of supporting life? Evolution theory cannot provide an answer to these questions, because evolutionary processes cannot occur until these conditions are met. Evolution theory therefore cannot provide a full explanation of the origins of life.

Mere details!

Everyone knows we don't have to worry about how a first protocell came into being.

IT JUST DID!

[Strel]

Originally Posted by momonkey

Mere details!

Everyone knows we don't have to worry about how a first protocell came into being.

IT JUST DID!

For purposes of evolution, you are 100% correct, because it doesn't matter how it came into being, only that it did and started reproducing.

But don't let me stop you doing the usual Creationist conflation of evolution and abiogenesis.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

"Je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse."

I already have physics for that.

Vos es sic splendens!

[TRUEGRITT]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

Yes and yes.

http://www.grcp.ucdavis.edu/publicat...dSympSuppl.pdf

Darwinian medicine: applications of evolutionary b... [Can Vet J. 2002] - PubMed result

Evolutionary Biology and Human Disease

Making evolutionary biology a basic science for medicine

Amazon.com: Principles of Evolutionary Medicine (Oxford Biology) (9780199236398): Peter Gluckman, Alan Beedle, Mark Hanson: Books

Good, my mistake, I am still learning.

Let's pretend for a moment that was true (though I assert it absolutely is not).

Are you suggesting that it is virtuous to promote a comfortable lie over an uncomfortable truth?

I stated that it split the country that the vast majority still believe is created. Right or wrong, that is how it is and I have highlighted and stated in several of my replies to you that I am in the "possibilities" or "until proved otherwise" corner.

For me it is not so much about evolution (though like a lot of folks it was before I learned more about it) but the genesis of life. I still don't buy certain aspects of evolution but I cannot argue what I can see in the vast differences in humans.

Who gets more pleasure out of this relationship: The human or the tapeworm?

That is not entirely a flip question.

I am talking about pleasure which is different than need to maintain life and I have read where some folks who wish to lose or maintain their weight will walk through feces in order to get a tapeworm. Riding a horse is mostly a pleasure for the human and the horse is merely a beast of burden performing a job to earn it's keep.

For the vast majority of the history of life on earth, there were no humans at all. For that entire period of time, animals experienced pleasure that had nothing to do with a species that did not yet exist. Since the rise of humans, it is certainly the other animals that have gotten the short end of the deal.

This may be true but until every fossil has been discovered, which is impossible, there are other possibilities. Explain pleasure in animal terms please. For instance...what pleasured the T-Rex.

Extending that out to the rest of the universe though... billions of galaxies exist of which we have been completely unaware until recently. To assert (as creationism does) that we are the purpose they were created is the poster child for arrogant and absurd.

There is nothing in the Bible dealing with life on other planets so I cannot comment on this other than to say, true Christianity teaches "meekness" and "turn the other cheek". These are not arrogant and absurd teachings.

We may as well assert that humanity was created to provide sustenance and shelter for tapeworms. The logic is identical.

Again, you are equating need or survival with pleasure.

[TRUEGRITT]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

We are not talking about an opinion poll. we are talking about objective truth.

The question that led to my answer was basically the same as yours below.

What would lead you to believe that most evolutionists are atheists?

I have answered this question, by reading posts and reading where some outright state that they are atheists.

Then there is Darwin himself. "In summary, then, Darwin was fully aware that his idea was a frontal assault on the very notion of an intelligent Designer behind the world. In fact, he might very well have formulated it precisely for that purpose. The idea of a spiritual realm apart from matter seems to have been anathema to him as a young man already. The primary inspiration for his theory of natural selection did not come from observation of nature. Perhaps not incidentally, his writings also reveal glimpses of specific antipathy to the God of the Bible, especially concerning His right to judge unbelievers in eternity."

Emphasis added.

[TRUEGRITT]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

I see nothing that would lead me to suspect for a nanosecond that the person writing is an atheist.

I think most (not all) would disagree.

Speaking only for myself. I listen to as many people and learn from as many people as I can... whether I like them or not.

As we all should but, some medicine is better taken with sugar.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by TRUEGRITT

I stated that it split the country that the vast majority still believe is created. Right or wrong, that is how it is and I have highlighted and stated in several of my replies to you that I am in the "possibilities" or "until proved otherwise" corner.

I know that's what you stated. But that is not an answer to the question I asked. I will try again:

Are you suggesting that it is virtuous to promote a comfortable lie over an uncomfortable truth?

Originally Posted by TRUEGRITT

I am talking about pleasure which is different than need to maintain life and I have read where some folks who wish to lose or maintain their weight will walk through feces in order to get a tapeworm. Riding a horse is mostly a pleasure for the human and the horse is merely a beast of burden performing a job to earn it's keep.

Yes, I know you are talking about pleasure... and I have given you a benefit of the doubt since I was not talking about pleasure at all, I was talking about purpose. I frankly consider pleasure a a hopelessly ambiguous and unmeasurable dimension, but you chose it as your metric, so I ran with it.

And yes, some people deliberately infect themselves with tapeworm to lose weight. And some people have healthy limbs amputated because they like the look. Weird and self destructive behaviors do not appear to be relevant to the discussion.

Your argument is that, because humans get a lot of pleasure from animals or otherwise find them useful it is correct to conclude (as the Bible contends) that their purpose for having been created was to give humans pleasure.

And I responded by pointed out that the identical logic would require us to conclude that the purpose for which humans were created was to serve as sustenance and shelter for tapeworms.

Or to give another example, because humans feed, care for and pick up the poop of dogs we must conclude that the purpose for which humans were created was to pick up dog poop.

I for one would consider any tape worm or dog that expressed such an opinion regarding human purpose to be both arrogant and absurd. They are saved from the indignity of that accusation by their inability to vocalize their arrogance. Humans in contrast are capable of actually opening their mouths and saying something that goofy.

Worse, we are capable of writing such goofy things down and calling them "revelation from God."

Originally Posted by TRUEGRITT

This may be true but until every fossil has been discovered, which is impossible, there are other possibilities. Explain pleasure in animal terms please. For instance...what pleasured the T-Rex.

No idea... other than the complete certainty that it was not humans. But the point remains that if your opinion regarding the purpose of animals (and the entire universe) is true, then only a tiny component of the entire universe has ever served any purpose whatsoever.

And that is both arrogant and absurd.

Originally Posted by TRUEGRITT

There is nothing in the Bible dealing with life on other planets so I cannot comment on this other than to say, true Christianity teaches "meekness" and "turn the other cheek". These are not arrogant and absurd teachings.

Frankly, there is nothing in the Bible that betrays even the tiniest hint of awareness of other planets. So its silence on the issue has a better explanation than meekness, humility or some obsequious affection for abuse. But my argument here is not against the Bible which can carry no blame for being nothing more than what it is. It is against contemporary creationists who know so much more (or at least have the opportunity to know so much more) than the authors of the Bible, and yet still believe that they are the center of the universe.

That is the arrogance and the absurdity of which I speak.

Originally Posted by TRUEGRITT

Again, you are equating need or survival with pleasure.

Alas, you are the one who picked pleasure as a metric for the real issue which is purpose.

And certainly, need or survival are both far more objective and relevant metrics for purpose than pleasure is.

Don't you think?

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by TRUEGRITT

I have answered this question, by reading posts and reading where some outright state that they are atheists.

In other words, you are admitting to having invented the assertion entirely out of intuition and whole cloth.

There is no need to do so... actual polls have been conducted on the issue. We know what percentage of evolutionists believe in God.

Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation

That percentage has consistently been that at least 70% of all evolutionists believe in God.

No need to complain about the Apolgetics Press's unfair depiction of Darwin. He has long been demonized by the religious.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by TRUEGRITT

I think most (not all) would disagree.

Forgive me if I assign confidence in that wild guess that is not significantly higher than in your other wild guess regarding the percentage of evolutionists that are atheists.